No Lone Rangers

Why I Am Not More "Active" in Civil and Cultural Actions.

Not that I assume anyone would really care about why I do this or that, except for me, but as stated before this blog is among other things, a place for me to sort out my own thoughts along the lines of "law attitudes". My only real activity has been to speak my faith, (Law and Gospel), to speak my mind, and to vote. I don't currently consider these things as being the limit to what needs to be done to effectively conform our culture to the standards of God.

I guess part of my reasoning for cowaring from more aggressive activities comes from a sense of being alone in engaging in such battles. I use the term cowaring with some hesitation because this presumed cowardice is rooted in a fear and/or inappropriateness of "going to battle" without the authority and support of the Church. It would be similar to a soldier enlisted in the service of his country, engaging what he percieves is the "enemy", when his country is not at war and does not acknowledge who this soldier is attacking as any kind of enemy! This makes the lone soldier appear to be more of a rogue terrorist rather than a patriotic defender of his country, and, his effectiveness is thus limited, if not nonexistent.

Likewise, this is the hesitation I feel when contemplating action in the civil and cultural arena. If the Church as a whole feels no moral obligation or duty to God in rebuking the culture and its civil magistrates, then for me to engage alone or with a few others, seems a contradiction to what I feel is the necessary momentum and authority to engage in such activity.

Alone I may engage as a "citizen", but as I have expressed before, this is a weak and humanistic approach to what I feel is the responsibility of the Church as a whole. I would rather stand on a firm foundation as a "Saint" who is a citizen of the Kingdom of God bearing the standards of the King of Kings and the Lord of lords.

This is a far cry from taking a stance as a citizen of a morally corrupt and anti-Christ culture. I do not want to engage the immoral culture on the standing of a citizen of that immoral culture, but rather as a citizen of the morally and spiritually authoratative Kingdom of God. But how can I, when the Kingdom of God as manifested on this earth at this present time, is unwilling to acknowledge an earthly enemy, and, its duty in obedience to the King? I don't know. I wait with prayer and further provoking of my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Corporatism and the Nature of Man

I have been browsing the Victory Garden Militia's videos and am finding some very like-minded ideas. This vid is about Corporatism, a term I believe, is used to be a more pallatable way to express Fascism. Joe here is very upset about Corporatism and how it has robbed mankind of our very nature and freedom of conscience, so don't be alarmed that he might use some questionable colloquialisms to express his anger. Don't get mad at Joe. Get mad at the Corporate fascists and then vote with your pocket book. I am finding that the whole purpose of this "VGM" is to educate people on alternatives to dependence on the Corporate Fascists. That really is the key. The more self reliant we can become, the less power these Fascists will have over our lives and over our consciences.

Obama and Fascism

I have been contemplating fascism and Obama. Is Obama the "closer" for our new fascist state? This bright young lady has some facts for us, and she also demonstrates a refreshing resolve NOT TO PARTICIPATE in this fascism. I too would encourage everyone to abstain from "worshiping" this false god and idol our government has become by refusing to bow in obedience to them, ...for your sake as well as for everyone elses.

Give Up Your Freedoms

Audit the Fed, Then End It! by Ron Paul

Monday, May 18, 2009 6:55 PM
Audit the Fed, Then End It!
- Essay by Ron Paul for May 18 2009

Listen to Ron Paul. Click the play button below.

Ron Paul...Audit the Fed, Then End It! 05/18/2009

HR 1207 calls for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve.
Running time: 00:04:06
Download MP3

I have been very pleased with the progress of my legislation, HR 1207, which calls for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve and removes many significant barriers towards transparency of our monetary system. This bill now has nearly 170 cosponsors, with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a companion bill in the Senate S 604, which will hopefully begin to gain momentum as well. I am very encouraged to see so many of my colleagues in Congress stand with me for greater transparency in government.

Some have begun to push back against this bill, and I am very happy to address their concerns.

The main argument seems to be that Congressional oversight over the Fed is government interference in the free market. This argument shows a misunderstanding of what a free market really is. Fundamentally, you cannot defend the Federal Reserve and the free market at the same time. The Fed negates the very foundation of a free market by artificially manipulating the price and supply of money – the lifeblood of the economy. In a free market, interest rates, like the price of any other consumer good, are decentralized and set by the market. The only legitimate, Constitutional role of government in monetary policy is to protect the integrity of the monetary unit and defend against counterfeiters.

Instead, Congress has abdicated this responsibility to a cabal of elite, quasi-governmental banks who, instead of stabilizing the economy, have destabilized it. It took less than two decades for the Federal Reserve to bring on the Great Depression of the 1930’s. It has also inflated away the value of our currency by over 96 percent since its inception. It has invisibly stolen from the poor and given to the rich through this controlled inflation, and now openly stolen through recent bank bailouts. It has predictably exacerbated the very problems it was meant to solve.

Detractors have also argued that the Fed must remain immune from the political process, and that that more congressional oversight would distort their very important decisions. On the contrary, the Federal Reserve is already heavily entrenched in the political process, as the Fed chairman is a political appointee. High level officials routinely make the rounds between positions at the Fed, member banks, Treasury and back again, taking care of friends and each other along the way.

As far as the foolishness of placing complex monetary policy decisions in the hands of politicians – I couldn’t agree more. No politician or central banker, no matter how brilliant, is smart enough to know more than the market itself. The failure of central economic planning has been witnessed over and over. It is frankly beyond me why we ever agreed to try it again.

To understand how unwise it is to have the Federal Reserve, one must first understand the magnitude of the privileges they have. They have been given the power to create money, by the trillions, and to give it to their friends, under any terms they wish, with little or no meaningful oversight or accountability. Thus the loudest arguments against greater transparency are likely to come from those friends, and understandably so.

However, it is the responsibility of every member of Congress to represent the interests of the people that sent them to Washington and find out what has been happening with our money. As the branch of government with the power of the purse, we really have no other reasonable choice when the economy is in the shape it is in.

Chuck Baldwin Interview: 05/18/2009

AUDIO: Alex Jones: Chuck Baldwin; on, "It's Getting Very Serious Now"

Alex Jones interviews Chuck Baldwin on 05/18/2009, on "It's Getting Very Serious Now".
Running time: 00:37:15
Download MP3

This interview deals with this article written by Chuck Baldwin last week.

AUDIO: Greg Bahnsen...Ethics and Culture Part 1

Greg Bahnsen...Ethics and Culture Part 1

Part 1 of 2 on Justice: Crime and Punishment.
Running time: 00:47:48
Download MP3

I was very glad to hear Greg Bahnsen on this recording speak to the issue of prisons the way he does. I have always thought that prisons are an unbiblical means of justice, and in fact are a means of one of the severest forms of torture. Greg Bahnsen feels the same way.

It's Getting Very Serious Now...THE AUDIO

AUDIO: It's Getting Very Serious Now, Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Alex Jones on dangerous bills going through Congress.
Running time: 00:11:30
Download MP3

EVERYBODY PAY ATTENTION: It's Getting Very Serious Now

I know a lot of you understand that we as Americans are on the verge of losing ALL of our freedoms given to us by our Lord, but some of you may still not be aware of this. I have posted the article below to let you know just how close we are to this reality. This is not to put fear into our hearts but to 'sober' us up so that we may enter this era with the proper resolve to fight against and pray against an ungodly tyrany and injustice that is at our door and is ready to devour everyone who is dear to us.

It Is Getting Very Serious Now
By Chuck Baldwin
May 12, 2009

First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then
it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New York
congressman's bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic
enough; taken together they portend "a clear and present danger" to the
liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now.

As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being
potential violence-prone "militia members": including people who supported
Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone
who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the
New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus,
the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a
possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal
Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand,
or illegal immigration.

The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually
rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed
from his position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included
in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as
potentially dangerous "extremists."

As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and
views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people
would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement
personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be watched
and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has
introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second Amendment
rights to everyone listed above.

According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, "A new gun law being considered
in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling
everyday Americans a potential 'threats,' could potentially deny firearms to
pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists,
and a host of others--any already on the expansive DHS watch list for
potential 'extremism.'

"Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and
Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney
general to deny transfer of a firearm to any 'known or suspected dangerous
terrorist.' The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is
'appropriately suspected' of preparing for a terrorist act and that the
attorney general 'has a reasonable belief' that the gun might be used in
connection with terrorism.

"Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that
it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment
rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being
'dangerous.'"

WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying,
"By [DHS] standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's
terrorists. This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the
people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the
DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill
the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."

Pratt was also quoted as saying, "Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the
bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment
rights are toast." He went on to say, "This such an anti-American bill, this
is something King George III would have done."

Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for "extremists," it
looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through which
these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter
King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159.

Let me ask a reasonable question: how long does anyone think it would be,
after being profiled by DHS and denied the lawful purchase of firearms, that
those same people would be subjected to gun confiscation? And how long do
you think it would be before DHS began profiling more and more groups of
people, thus subjecting them to gun confiscation?

This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the
first people denied their civil rights--especially the right to own and
possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German
citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led.

I'm not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the
attempted confiscation of the colonialists' cache of arms in Concord,
Massachusetts, that started America's War for Independence. Yes, my friends,
it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the "shot
heard 'round the world." And now it would appear that, once again, a central
government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right
to keep and bear arms.

I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or
more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms
nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun
owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential
"extremist." I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being
targeted by their government, and just how serious--and how close--the
threat of gun confiscation has become?

If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the
American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple
of weeks ago.

Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President
Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and
George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator
Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the
American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also
reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all
privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be
in charge." (Even though the national news media has not reported this
statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether
Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have
repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no
constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)

This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners
would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many
would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?

As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun
confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate,
discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point.
I say again, it is getting very serious now.

AUDIO: Forced Eviction; Recorded Live This Morning

AUDIO: Grandma Loses Her Own Home By Force. Recorded Live This Morning, Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Recorded Live This Morning: Lady stormed by police and evicted, even though she owns her home.
Running time: 21:58
Download MP3

Go to Audio Player

Download MP3

Should a Christian Join the Military?

I thought the following short article was important because kids (young adults) are facing fewer and fewer opportunities today outside of military/law enforcement positions. It is an honest question and should be considered primarily before deciding by any other criteria, in my opinion...

May 08, 2009
Should a Christian Join the Military?
Posted by Laurence Vance at May 8, 2009 08:24 PM

I have been saying no for years, and, although it has cost me dearly, it is a price I have been willing to pay. It is good to see that Chuck Baldwin is now speaking out against Christians joining the military.

In his May 7th article "Can Christians Serve in the New World Order Army?", Baldwin says that "an argument could be made that every war the United States has fought since World War II has been unconstitutionally waged: for the purpose of fulfilling the globalistic aspirations of world leaders and not for the defense of the United States."

Baldwin warns Christians about the military and law enforcement: "Our military personnel are more and more resembling international policemen, while our local and state peacekeepers resemble military forces. Neither bodes well for U.S. sovereignty and independence, or for liberty at home."

There are many other reasons, of course, for Christians not joining the military (see my LRC archive), but I "salute" Baldwin for writing what he did.